Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @05:17AM
from the it-wasn't-me,-it-was-the-one-armed-antibacterial-chemical dept.

New submitter daleallan writes "Triclosan, which is widely used in consumer handsoaps, toothpaste, clothes, carpets and trash bags, impairs muscle function in animal studies, say researchers at UC Davis (abstract). It slows swimming in fish and reduces muscle strength in mice. It may even impair the ability of heart muscle cells to contract. The chemical is in everyone's home and pervasive in the environment, the lead researcher says. One million pounds of Triclosan is produced in the U.S. annually and it's found in waterways, fish, dolphins, human urine, blood and breast milk. The researchers say their findings 'Call for a dramatic reduction in use.' It's in my Colgate Total toothpaste, and in fact, preventing gingivitis is the only use that may be worthwhile, although this makes me think twice about continuing to brush with it."
This isn't the first time Triclosan has been in the news over safety concerns.

Take Arsenic. We know it as a deadly poison. We all eat or drink a few micrograms of arsenic each day. If you take that away and make 100% free arsenic food, test that on rats, it turns out that they die more quickly. Is this the same for humans? Nobody knows that, but this is the same with most food research. So let's assume that it works the same for humans.

It simply shows that like most things, too little is not good, too much neither. Drink four liters of water each day, and you will probably die.

What you're forgetting is that assuming all other systems in your body are healthy, your kidneys will excrete the excess water, along with urea, in order to balance all pressures (and electrolytes), and fairly quickly at that. It's when the heart is in failure that excess blood volume results in edema and diuretics are required. Drinking four liters of water a day (almost 136 fluid ounces for the Americans playing at home, or a little over 11-12 ounce glasses), over the course of the day, results in nothing

Urinary levels of bisphenol A, triclosan and 4-nonylphenol in a general Belgian population.

'Geometric mean concentration was determined for bisphenol A at 2.55ug/l and for triclosan at 2.70ug/l'

Now, Triclosans molar mass is around 300.0.52uMol/l is therefore 300 times this - 150ug/l.So, this is lots higher - 50 times - that in the general population.(Assuming urine and blood are of similar concentration, I can find no papers on this in 2 mins)

However, 50* is not a stupid amount to exceed dosages by, especially given that it's likely that some humans will exceed the average by at least 5 times.

Can a scientist type person please clarify this for the less-sciency of us?

uM is micromolar, not micrometer. Micrometer is um. Molarity is a a unit of concentration where 1M is one mole of a substance per liter. A mole is the number of atoms of a substance it takes for the actual weight to match the molecular weight. e.g. The molecular weight of an oxygen molecule (O2) is twice the molecular weight of oxygen(2x16=32). So one mole of O2 weighs 32g.

The actual numerical value of the mole is avogadro's number(6.02x10^23), but it's not really necessary to work with the actual number when you're doing concentration calculations like this.

Lots of things are harmful to one organism and not another: Theobromine is deadly to dogs but fairly harmless to us except in extreme quantities because we have enzymes which can handle it.

Sorry to nitpick, but that's not really the best example. The LD50 for theobromine poisoning in dogs is 300mg/kg, around 1/3 that of humans. The TDLO (lowest amount required for symptoms) in dogs is 16mg/kg, about 2/3 that of humans. They really aren't that different from us.

A 3kg chihuahua could eat a standard-size (43g) Hershey's milk chocolate bar and be completely asymptomatic. To reach its LD50, that chihuahua would have to eat around 15 chocolate bars. Of course, most dogs are much heavier than 3kg and have a similarly higher tolerance for theobromine: If a dog weighed as much as a typical human (let's say 75kg), it could eat 25 chocolate bars without any harmful effect.

It's important to realize that dogs are opportunistic and will overeat if given the opportunity. Most breeds are also much smaller than humans. Stories of theobromine poisoning typically come from dogs who discovered a cache of chocolate candies and consumed an enormous amount compared to their body weight.

But as long as you maintain some level of portion control, there's really nothing wrong with giving them a normal amount of chocolate in their diet. Just be careful with purer forms of chocolate—dark chocolate can have three times and raw unsweetened chocolate can have ten times as much theobromine as normal chocolate candy.

suffocation is not the same thing as lack of oxygen though the eventual means of death will be the same (no oxygen in the blood to keep the body running) what happens along the way wont.

Our breathing reflexes are driven by CO2,. The presense of lots of CO2 will cause a pressing urge to try and breathe no matter what is in the way or how painful the attempt is. Eventually as the CO2 builds up this urge will override even the urge not to breathe water.

You would be better off giving it a grape or an onion. Chocolate is fairly weak in killing a dog than that of cocoa itself. An onion actually causes the blood cells in a dog to "pop" which means a deader dog in a shorter time.

These microbes outnumber us, in our OWN bodies. They are how we digest our food, repel destructive invaders, regulate enzyme levels - and are likely involved in our psychological disposition.

The fact is, we know almost nothing about this - just the tip of an iceberg. Science and Medicine are just getting past the primitive, binary thinking that sterile systems are healthiest. Killing ALL the bacteria in your mouth? Health complications emerge when you lose the phages that destroy actually harmful bacteria.

Poisoning this has a potential for huge, uncalculated consequences. And merely brushing your teeth with this stuff trickles a little dose of triclosan into your tract, two or three times a day.

I think that it would be interesting to study the correlation between triclosan exposure and the obesity epidemic.

Well, perhaps if a chemical is *new*... you should first understand the risks and dangers of an unknown chemical before you start putting it into consumer products?

It *IS* the burden for companies to produce safe products that are not dangerous to the people using them when used as designed. Especially when it is something we put in or on our bodies that can negatively affect health.

It should be the burden of companies to ensure that their products are safe. The fact that concerns have been raised about this chemical and no action has been taken means that the burden is very much on companies now.

Isn't that how it works in the EU now? It's called the precautionary principle. You don't actually have to prove that they're safe of course, you only have to prove that they're not very harmful. A lot of substances were simply slapped on the list of safe items based on historical use, but a lot weren't, too.

Of course, we're not talking about "proof" here in the pure mathematical "exhaustive" sense, but in the statistical confidence sense, and more specifically, in requiring a basic set of health/environmental impact studies before a new chemical can be used. Which just seems like common sense. If one is worried about that being too onerous, then the burden could be varied depending on how similar they are to existing chemicals which have gone through the full battery of health studies.

Except that similarity to existing chemicals that have been extensively tested is completely useless as an attribute for anticipating safety. Remember thalidomide? [wikipedia.org] Thalidomide comes in two forms, known generally as isomers [wikipedia.org]. It's like your hands - they're not identical, but rather, mirror images of each other. So one isomer of thalidomide is perfectly safe to use. . . and the other fits perfectly into your DNA, and provides a wonderfully bioactive spot for all kinds of shit [wikipedia.org] to go down.

The “do you have evidence” fallacy, mistaking evidence of no harm for no evidence of harm, is similar to the one of misinterpreting NED (no evidence of disease) for evidence of no disease. This is the same error as mistaking absence of evidence for evidence of absence, the one that tends to affect smart and educated people, as if education made people more confirmatory in their responses and more liable to fall into simple logical errors.

That may have been the case here. That is, for years no evidence of harm was mistaken for evidence of no harm.

More generally, Prof. Taleb argues at page 376:

Simple, quite simple decision rules and heuristics emerge from this chapter. Via negativa, of course (by removal of the unnatural): resort to medical techniques when the health payoff is very large (say, saving a life) and visibly exceeds its potential harm, such as incontrovertibly needed surgery or lifesaving medicine (penicillin). It is the same as with government intervention. This is squarely Thalesian, not Aristotelian (that is, decision making based on payoffs, not knowledge). For in these cases medicine has positive asymmetries —convexity effects— and the outcome will be less likely to produce fragility. Otherwise, in situations in which the benefits of a particular medicine, procedure, or nutritional or lifestyle modification appear small—say, those aiming for comfort—we have a large potential sucker problem (hence putting us on the wrong side of convexity effects).

Need to stress this, Triclosan is not the only drug found in waterways

A lot of other substances that human being are using ended up in waterways and they are having all types of side effects on ecology around us

I read an article about 10 years ago that nano-silver particles that we human are using - to kill bacteria, -somehow entered the waterways and end up killing a lot of microbial lifeforms, and the chain reaction (according to the articles that i read, can't find the links to them anymore, sorry) was worrying

I read an article about 10 years ago that nano-silver particles that we human are using - to kill bacteria, -somehow entered the waterways and end up killing a lot of microbial lifeforms, and the chain reaction (according to the articles that i read, can't find the links to them anymore, sorry) was worrying

The oligodynamic effect [wikimedia.org] is one of the mechanisms by which metals such as silver and copper kill some microorganisms. A benefit in the applications of doorknobs, silverware and copper plumbing; not so much in washing machines and dishwashers that exploit the effect, if what you say is true.

We find copper for the same reasons as silver. Scientists have also found increases estrogen and estrogen-like chemicals, and there was a story recently about a marked increase in the amount of caffeine in waterways, likely from human waste.

I can certainly dose any given collection of animals with nearly any given chemical in a fashion that will kill them (either quickly or slowly, depending on the particular substance.) I can also dose them with an utterly harmless dose of the most toxic and horrible poisons known to mankind and the animal will live. This applicable to everything from water or oxygen to nasty organic or radiologic stuff.

In the end, it all comes down to the dose. Was the dose these animals were given at all representative of the dosing received by a person using triclosan-based products? (Or animals absorbing triclosan in the environment?) Would have been nice if that press release had mentioned it. Since it didn't, I can guess that the dose is utterly ridiculous.

I've only had a quick scan through the article, but near the end it explicitly says:

Our acute in vivo experiments were aimed at understanding mechanisms and potential risks, and therefore used an intraperitoneal route of exposure. However, the exposures tested here produced (triclosan) blood plasma concentrations consistent with levels found in some humans.

So if I'm reading that right, the potential health risk depends on exactly who those "some humans" were, and if they were people who generally used tric

...and if they were people who generally used triclosan products or if they were people injected with the stuff, which isn't really made clear.

That is pretty much the gist of it. Did the subjects absorb the stuff cutaneously, or were they injected with it?

Also, the headline is a bit hysterical. There are other widely-used substances that impair muscle function.

Take Azithromycin (Zithromax, Z-Pack) for example - granted, it's not used quite as widely as triclosan, however quite a few people have ingested this antibiotic at one time or another. It tends to strongly inhibit the pre-synaptic release of acetylcholine at the nicotinic acetylcholine r

Excellent question, which should have had its answer in the summary. The dose is 12.5mg/kg injected interperitoneally. This dose will cause 20% reduction in muscle strength for a short period after the injection. In humans TCS is metabolized and inactivated rapidly (according to the article), although people with genetic effects may retain the drug for longer periods. It is unclear if the mice on which the experiments were done metabolize the drug with the same efficiency. If the drugs has to be absorbed th

Thought it was just age (and, yes, it still could be; I'm not diabetic, so it isn't neuropathy), but my wife insists on using stuff with that in it, and it's damned hard to avoid in normal grocery/department stores.

Indeed. There is, however, strong evidence that gum disease is linked to heart disease (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215184308.htm). None of this is as risky as stress however, so stop worrying and get on with your life, if you try to do every little thing you can to "improve your chances" then you'll probably have the opposite effect.

No idea why. Its mostly women that the utter nonsense known as toilet cleaner is marketed to. Why do I care if there are no bacteria in my toilet? I don't drink out of it , I piss and crap in it. And as soon anyone does that its full of bacteria again so why do I want to spend $$$ on some blue coloured gunk (thats probably a pollutant) to kill the bacteria??

Indeed, it's probably cleaner than your keyboard - your keyboard is not made of impervious porcelain and regularly flushed with copious amounts of water. It's made of attractively textured plastic (lots of little niches for bacteria to thrive) and regularly touched by human hands (lots of food for bacteria to eat, skin, grease, etc).

The flush toilet is a horrendously inefficient use of water anyway. 40% of our domestic water use is flushing the toilet, which is a staggering waste of potable water in an era

We are just begiining to realize how all these medications and chemicals that are poured down the sink and flushed into our planet's oceans and waterways affect our ecology. We are starting to see the effects on the wildlife. Frogs are disappearing at alarming rates because of these chemicals, and their habitats being destroyed.

I never understood the whole "antibacterial" hype. If you broadly and indiscriminately use an antibiotic (and if it is antibacterial, it is an antibiotic per definitionem), all you get are strains of immune bacteria. I am pretty sure that in the average american household, there are more bacteria immune to Triclosan per cubic feet than New York has inhabitants.

Your immune system needs exposure to bacteria in order to stay strong. If you are always using anti-bacterial lotions and wipes, your white bloods cells can 'forget' how to fight off infection. Some of the healthiest guys are sewer workers, they rarely take a sick day, because their immune systemsare so strong, since they are constantly fighting off bacteria.

Some of the healthiest guys are sewer workers, they rarely take a sick day, because their immune systemsare so strong, since they are constantly fighting off bacteria.

But their breath is knock down nasty and their farts are room clearing because sewage workers' internal bio flora has a larger population of anaerobic and methanogenic bacteria. Apart from that they are really nice guys.

The experiments in mice were performed at 12.5mg/kg, which would be (for the average 65-kg human) a shocking 812.5mg of Triclosan. If your standard amount of handsoap and toothpaste is 2ml that's like brushing your teeth with a 1/3 solution of triclosan and swallowing it.

Like most of the research in PNAS this was not subjected to the high level of peer review expected in most scholarly journals and this paper got through without regard to its relevance and real-world significance.

At a high enough dose, caffeine causes cancer in lab animals. But not at the doses even Slashdotters consume.

You are probably right; however it does depend on how rapidly it is broken down and excreted by the body. If it is never got rid of, then this test is using a massive under-dose (from my point of view), since I have certainly swallowed 2 tubes-worth of Colgate Total over the course of my life.

If it is eliminated in 12 hours it is a huge over-dose as you say. Somewhere in between these points is an elimination-rate which makes this number entirely appropriate.

One thing to consider is the cumulative dose of chemicals from the daily use of various products.

I made a strategic decision a while back to use only all-natural/mostly chemical free products for the daily hygiene (I'm mostly vegan anyway), and I've not been disappointed. The deodorant crystal for example is excellent. It only contains the effective natural ingredient and works well (if you're not a high odor person). It's amazing how it just completely kills the body odor. I've also stopped using shampoo,

For one thing, its reversible. Wears off after 60 mins in mice at the dose they were using. Hey that might even mean less free radicals which cause aging. Second, humans aren't going to notice the effects at the doses they receive, otherwise we would have seen it in factory workers that produce triclosan already. So nobody should be alarmed at least, unless maybe it impairs salmon swimming upstream to reproduce.

It has been known for decades that household use of antibacterial soaps creates immune bacteria that are causing major problems for hospitals. There is no reason for it [youtube.com], but it takes a new study that shows you are not just fucking shit up for everyone, you are fucking your own shit up too. Now people will stop, selfishness rules.

I doubt many people will really miss the use of Triclosan in things like garbage bags and carpet, but toothpaste is a different story. Dental hygiene seems to me to be the one application where you're better off using wide-spectrum antibiotics all the time. Everyone is born with one set of teeth (yes you could argue two), and you'd like all those teeth to last your lifetime.

"Dental hygiene seems to me to be the one application where you're better off using wide-spectrum antibiotics all the time"

Nonsense. Tooth decay is only caused by a small subset of bacteria and most of them are removed by physical brushing. The only use for the toothpaste is mainly for the flouride. There are thousands of different types of bacteria in the human mouth and no one knows if any of them are useful to our health as the ones in our guts and on our skin are. Just killing the lot of them every day

Do you for Colgates PR dept or something? I've managed for 43 years without using it and I still have all my teeth. Besides that, people who have a low sugar diet have very little decay because there's little for the bacteria to eat. Perhaps advocating a sane diet instead of the over sweetened gunk we eat in the west would be a better approach.

"Dental hygiene seems to me to be the one application where you're better off using wide-spectrum antibiotics all the time"

Nonsense. Tooth decay is only caused by a small subset of bacteria and most of them are removed by physical brushing. The only use for the toothpaste is mainly for the flouride. There are thousands of different types of bacteria in the human mouth and no one knows if any of them are useful to our health as the ones in our guts and on our skin are. Just killing the lot of them every day is probably foolish.

There is a very very strong statistical link between heart valve infections (which will kill you DRT if undetected) and dental hygine. Bacterial loads on gums or tooth infections can directly lead to not only infections in the head, but infections in the blood stream and cardiovascular system.

A nigh-germ free environment in the dental area is much better for overall health than believing in "friendly" bacteria there. At least, with modern research and thinking. There's probably lots of bacteria that have

I've been trying to convince my wife to stop buying hand wash containing bactericidals and instead just try to keep everything clean with common products.

That said, I would not be amazed if some patent related to triclosan is due to expire. An excellent time for alarm and to push a new, supposedly less harmful, more expensive freshly patented replacement.

This reminds me of a one-panel cartoon I saw years & years ago. There are two glum-looking scientists in lab coats surrounded by Bunsen burners and all kinds of test equipment. One is holding a beaker full of liquid and says to the other, "The final results are in. EVERYTHING causes cancer!"

I stopped using Colgate Total after becoming aware of this issue a year ago, after a decade's use. Switched to Tom's of Maine Whole Care. There was an immediate, radical difference. While using Colgate Total - two brushings a day - I'd wake up with foul breath. That got much better with Tom's within the first few days, and has continued to improve.

The thing is, just as killing off much of the bacteria in your gut is a really bad idea, so is killing off much of the bacteria in your mouth. It's an ecosystem. Continuously assaulting it is not the way to bring it into health. Just went to the dentist, and my teeth were cleaner, my gums in better shape, than when I'd been using the Colgate. Not that they were in bad shape before. Just that this time there was less work for the hygenist, and less to prompt a closer check by the dentist.

You are being rather silly, there are a rather significant number of Americans, 600 million or so which is a rather large pool in which to find talented atheletes, compared with other countries where populations are smaller you would expect a larger proportion of medals.

http://www.medalspercapita.com/ [medalspercapita.com] is interesting when you break down medals against the population size you find the USA at 49th place and Ireland at 22nd and the UK at 23rd.

You are being rather silly, there are a rather significant number of Americans, 600 million or so
Where does that number come from? U.S. populatipn is 314 million. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html [census.gov]